I'm going to ask you to clarify your point/request rather than just be bitchy when I don't hit it right.

I swear to God, Nick, I'm not being bitchy. I have simply stipulated that the Couric interview was liberally biased. I want to know what's next. The problem with "liberal media" claims is that they're almost always based on a hasty generalization based on a limited sample. I think that basing such a claim on a single interview is even worse than pointless, since it requires not only a ridiculous amount of parsing (about which we'll simply debate endlessly) but also ignores the broader context in which that interview took place. The reasoning for such claims is also very often a perfect example of begging the question (on either side, but the left generally claims that the media suck, not that they're politically biased).

Anyway. You asked me for something to chew on. How about Adam Nagourney (NY Times political editor) or Chris Cillliza (of the WaPo)? Or MTP? Or FTN?

But before we do that we need to get to another definition: what, precisely, does it mean to be "biased"? And even more, what does it mean to be "liberally biased"?

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

I watched that documentary Spin again last night and I don't why anyone would even want to defend Katie Couric for a goddamn thing. She has and always will be a media whore. Like most of the others on network television. She's there in that documentary, watch it. You'll see how much she and many many others give a shit about what they are reporting.

Trumptman has a great and long standing argument here. One that will never end. That's why I haven't really argued, just directed to other sources or indications of media and the manipulation of it that goes back not just in the 21st century, but beyond.

Quote:

Yellow journalism is a type of journalism that downplays legitimate news in favor of eye-catching headlines that sell more newspapers. It may feature exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, sensationalism, or unprofessional practices by news media organizations or journalists. Campbell (2001) defines Yellow Press newspapers as having daily multi-column front-page headlines covering a variety of topics, such as sports and scandal, using bold layouts (with large illustrations and perhaps color), heavy reliance on unnamed sources, and unabashed self-promotion. The term was extensively used to describe certain major New York City newspapers about 1900 as they battled for circulation. By extension the term is used today as a pejorative to decry any journalism that treats news in an unprofessional or unethical fashion, such as systematic political bias.

One of the best reporters said:

Quote:

Our history will be what we make it. And if there are any historians about fifty or a hundred years from now, and there should be preserved the kinescopes for one week of all three networks, they will there find recorded in black and white, or color, evidence of decadence, escapism and insulation from the realities of the world in which we live. I invite your attention to the television schedules of all networks between the hours of 8 and 11 p.m., Eastern Time. Here you will find only fleeting and spasmodic reference to the fact that this nation is in mortal danger. There are, it is true, occasional informative programs presented in that intellectual ghetto on Sunday afternoons. But during the daily peak viewing periods, television in the main insulates us from the realities of the world in which we live. If this state of affairs continues, we may alter an advertising slogan to read: LOOK NOW, PAY LATER. - Edward R. Murrow 1958

Today, with cell phones, video cameras and YouTube, reporting has changed. It will be the next generation of journalism. It will come from the people themselves. Unfortunately, the media and the governments of the world are getting smarter every day and have begun censorship on YouTube (look at the Israeli/Gaza conflict for one) so it's in disarray. It's not easy finding the truth even with the internet...rant over...well, I'm waking up actually...found it...

What could be the next generation of press and journalism could be the model South Korea has.

I swear to God, Nick, I'm not being bitchy. I have simply stipulated that the Couric interview was liberally biased.

Well how can you stipulate it is if you don't know what it is that liberally biased means?

Quote:

But before we do that we need to get to another definition: what, precisely, does it mean to be "biased"? And even more, what does it mean to be "liberally biased"?[

v.Is your definition of biased different from most dictionaries?

2.
a. A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.
b. An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice.
3. A statistical sampling or testing error caused by systematically favoring some outcomes over others.To influence in a particular, typically unfair direction; prejudice.

Is the point to have a discussion or to simply exhaust anyone wanting to read it? Shall we have a discussion of what language we are going to type in, what alphabet we are going to use and which hand we favor in typing and the possible influences and thought shaping properties those will have as well. If there is no common ground for discussion, if every bit of everything is going to be contested, even common word definitions, then there is no point in going through with this. You'll need to play that game with someone else.

Quote:

I want to know what's next. The problem with "liberal media" claims is that they're almost always based on a hasty generalization based on a limited sample. I think that basing such a claim on a single interview is even worse than pointless, since it requires not only a ridiculous amount of parsing (about which we'll simply debate endlessly) but also ignores the broader context in which that interview took place. The reasoning for such claims is also very often a perfect example of begging the question (on either side, but the left generally claims that the media suck, not that they're politically biased).

Anyway. You asked me for something to chew on. How about Adam Nagourney (NY Times political editor) or Chris Cillliza (of the WaPo)? Or MTP? Or FTN?

So you made the suggestion we look at specific examples just so you could shoot it down but then blame the fact that I went along with it on me? We within these forums do not have several assistants who will sample several news hours each day and go through looking for evidence of bias using similar criteria across all shows with the rotations to ensure limited perceptual bias wanders into the human input side, etc, etc. I can link to studies that have done that and already relinked one.

So now you give me something more "to chew on" why, so that once we have chewed on it, you can simply say it is a hasty generalization, begging the question and really all we did is argue about the parsing.

Pick an end on which to burn this candle. I'm not going to dig into something at your suggest merely to have you say afterwards your own suggestion was fatally flawed and crap reasoning.

If you want to move on to something else, I did happen to link to a Time article at the very beginning of this thread. I linked to an interview of Ann Coulter and the most interesting thing about that, is you talk about context, but you could watch a dozen interviews with her and watch the same bias yield the same result, hostility, challenges about tone/intent, and dozens of dismissals involving her not believing what she writes and that she can't be/doesn't take herself seriously. It is even true across multiple books.

So either we can do this in a limited way, or doing that can't bring us any realizations while having a conversation with each other. Pick your poison and proceed.

If you want to move on to something else, I did happen to link to a Time article at the very beginning of this thread. I linked to an interview of Ann Coulter and the most interesting thing about that, is you talk about context, but you could watch a dozen interviews with her and watch the same bias yield the same result, hostility, challenges about tone/intent, and dozens of dismissals involving her not believing what she writes and that she can't be/doesn't take herself seriously. It is even true across multiple books.

Pick your poison and proceed.

Unfortunately, Ann Coulter is poison. She's her own worst enemy. You'd have a better argument if you chose Sarah Palin instead.

Well how can you stipulate it is if you don't know what it is that liberally biased means?

v.Is your definition of biased different from most dictionaries?

2.
a. A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.
b. An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice.
3. A statistical sampling or testing error caused by systematically favoring some outcomes over others.To influence in a particular, typically unfair direction; prejudice.

Is the point to have a discussion or to simply exhaust anyone wanting to read it? Shall we have a discussion of what language we are going to type in, what alphabet we are going to use and which hand we favor in typing and the possible influences and thought shaping properties those will have as well. If there is no common ground for discussion, if every bit of everything is going to be contested, even common word definitions, then there is no point in going through with this. You'll need to play that game with someone else.

So you made the suggestion we look at specific examples just so you could shoot it down but then blame the fact that I went along with it on me? We within these forums do not have several assistants who will sample several news hours each day and go through looking for evidence of bias using similar criteria across all shows with the rotations to ensure limited perceptual bias wanders into the human input side, etc, etc. I can link to studies that have done that and already relinked one.

So now you give me something more "to chew on" why, so that once we have chewed on it, you can simply say it is a hasty generalization, begging the question and really all we did is argue about the parsing.

Pick an end on which to burn this candle. I'm not going to dig into something at your suggest merely to have you say afterwards your own suggestion was fatally flawed and crap reasoning.

If you want to move on to something else, I did happen to link to a Time article at the very beginning of this thread. I linked to an interview of Ann Coulter and the most interesting thing about that, is you talk about context, but you could watch a dozen interviews with her and watch the same bias yield the same result, hostility, challenges about tone/intent, and dozens of dismissals involving her not believing what she writes and that she can't be/doesn't take herself seriously. It is even true across multiple books.

So either we can do this in a limited way, or doing that can't bring us any realizations while having a conversation with each other. Pick your poison and proceed.

God I don't know how someone can print so many paragraphs and say basically something that could have been summed up in one.

Coulter is a slime that wants to rewrite history ( McCarthy ) among other things to fit her world view. I sometimes wonder if she takes herself seriously. She's a dying breed however. Like Limbaugh.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Unfortunately, Ann Coulter is poison. She's her own worst enemy. You'd have a better argument if you chose Sarah Palin instead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

God I don't know how someone can print so many paragraphs and say basically something that could have been summed up in one.

Coulter is a slime that wants to rewrite history ( McCarthy ) among other things to fit her world view. I sometimes wonder if she takes herself seriously. She's a dying breed however. Like Limbaugh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bergermeister

Thank goodness. The sooner, the better.

She is vile.

Hey guess what, if all three of you interviewed her, I would call it bias because clearly you all have the same political perspective. Your bias might not let you see it or even deal with it professionally as a journalist should, but perhaps you all realize you have the same political orientation and thus the same reaction.

Hey guess what, if all three of you interviewed her, I would call it bias because clearly you all have the same political perspective. Your bias might not let you see it or even deal with it professionally as a journalist should, but perhaps you all realize you have the same political orientation and thus the same reaction.

So does the media.

OF COURSE THE MEDIA DOES. I HAVE ALREADY AGREED IT DOES.

That documentary SPIN shows this explicitly. But you want to be the victim of it, not me. I find other venues for news and information. Go ahead, be a victim. When is that bubble going to explode trumptman? When?

A sampling of why, whether concervative, democrat, male or female Ann Coulter is a bad example for your argument...

Quote:

"[Clinton] masturbates in the sinks."---Rivera Live 8/2/99

"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'"---Hannity & Colmes, 6/20/01

The "backbone of the Democratic Party" is a "typical fat, implacable welfare recipient"---syndicated column 10/29/99

To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that war."---MSNBC

"Women like Pamela Harriman and Patricia Duff are basically Anna Nicole Smith from the waist down. Let's just call it for what it is. They're whores."---Salon.com 11/16/00

Juan Gonzales is "Cuba's answer to Joey Buttafuoco," a "miscreant," "sperm-donor," and a "poor man's Hugh Hefner."---Rivera Live 5/1/00

On Princess Diana's death: "Her children knew she's sleeping with all these men. That just seems to me, it's the definition of 'not a good mother.' ... Is everyone just saying here that it's okay to ostentatiously have premarital sex in front of your children?"..."[Diana is] an ordinary and pathetic and confessional - I've never had bulimia! I've never had an affair! I've never had a divorce! So I don't think she's better than I am."---MSNBC 9/12/97

"I think there should be a literacy test and a poll tax for people to vote."---Hannity & Colmes, 8/17/99

"I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote."---Politically Incorrect, 2/26/01

"If you don't hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don't love your country."---George, 7/99

"We're now at the point that it's beyond whether or not this guy is a horny hick. I really think it's a question of his mental stability. He really could be a lunatic. I think it is a rational question for Americans to ask whether their president is insane."---Equal Time

"It's enough [to be impeached] for the president to be a pervert."---The Case Against Bill Clinton, Coulter's 1998 book.

"Clinton is in love with the erect penis."---This Evening with Judith Regan, Fox News Channel 2/6/00

"I think we had enough laws about the turn-of-the-century. We don't need any more." Asked how far back would she go to repeal laws, she replied, "Well, before the New Deal...[The Emancipation Proclamation] would be a good start."---Politically Incorrect 5/7/97

"If they have the one innocent person who has ever to be put to death this century out of over 7,000, you probably will get a good movie deal out of it."---MSNBC 7/27/97

"If those kids had been carrying guns they would have gunned down this one [child] gunman. ... Don't pray. Learn to use guns."---Politically Incorrect, 12/18/97

"The presumption of innocence only means you don't go right to jail."---Hannity & Colmes 8/24/01

"I have to say I'm all for public flogging. One type of criminal that a public humiliation might work particularly well with are the juvenile delinquents, a lot of whom consider it a badge of honor to be sent to juvenile detention. And it might not be such a cool thing in the 'hood to be flogged publicly."---MSNBC 3/22/97

"Originally, I was the only female with long blonde hair. Now, they all have long blonde hair."---CapitolHillBlue.com 6/6/00

"Let's say I go out every night, I meet a guy and have sex with him. Good for me. I'm not married."---Rivera Live 6/7/00

"Anorexics never have boyfriends. ... That's one way to know you don't have anorexia, if you have a boyfriend."---Politically Incorrect 7/21/97

"I think [Whitewater]'s going to prevent the First Lady from running for Senate."---Rivera Live 3/12/99

"My track record is pretty good on predictions."---Rivera Live 12/8/98

"The thing I like about Bush is I think he hates liberals."---Washington Post 8/1/00

On Rep. Christopher Shays (d-CT) in deciding whether to run against him as a Libertarian candidate: "I really want to hurt him. I want him to feel pain."---Hartford Courant 6/25/99

"The swing voters---I like to refer to them as the idiot voters because they don't have set philosophical principles. You're either a liberal or you're a conservative if you have an IQ above a toaster. "---Beyond the News, Fox News Channel, 6/4/00

"My libertarian friends are probably getting a little upset now but I think that's because they never appreciate the benefits of local fascism."---MSNBC 2/8/97

"You want to be careful not to become just a blowhard."---Washington Post 10/16/98

ANN COULTER IS A BLOWHARD. Deal with it. Turn off your fucking TV and deal with it.

You know, Nick, I think you're right. We should just wail away at each other in a debate where we haven't agreed upon any definitions, or subject, or what a conclusion would look likejust like every other debate around here. Because I think it's important that we wrangle something only to learn that your definition of "liberal bias" is "asked a question that I didn't like" and my definition of "liberal bias" is "stuck a hand down Obama's pants and had a ramble while interviewing him." And I think you're right to just cut off any future discussion here of this thing that you seemed to want to talk about by throwing up your hands and saying that I'll just call it a logical fallacy, because god help us, we should have enormous debates about premises that are simply fallacious. We should maybe debate "why the Bible is true because god says so in the Bible" or "I met a black guy who was an asshole and that means all black guys are assholes." And then I think you should continue to complain that I'm being bitchy or trying to wear you down because I'm trying to engage this topic in some rigorous way.

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

Hey guess what, if all three of you interviewed her, I would call it bias because clearly you all have the same political perspective. Your bias might not let you see it or even deal with it professionally as a journalist should, but perhaps you all realize you have the same political orientation and thus the same reaction.

So does the media.

Yes trumpy. I'm extremely biased when someone tries to portray something in a light other than the truth.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

That documentary SPIN shows this explicitly. But you want to be the victim of it, not me. I find other venues for news and information. Go ahead, be a victim. When is that bubble going to explode trumptman? When?

A sampling of why, whether concervative, democrat, male or female Ann Coulter is a bad example for your argument...

ANN COULTER IS A BLOWHARD. Deal with it. Turn off your fucking TV and deal with it.

T.V? I'd have to turn off my web-connection. Your sample of statements is provacative but that doesn't make it wrong or worthy of not engaging the ideas. We have a lot of social commentators that straddle different lines. Someone we both enjoyed, George Carlin, many people I know complained he had just gone bitter toward the end and it wasn't comedy, just political ranting. I know I could compile a series of quotes from him just as provocative in ten minutes of material and that was what was great about him. I could do the same for Bill Maher as well.

I really don't care if someone is safe or generic because that doesn't often challenge thinking. I'd rather risk being offended and have my thinking challenged than to sit there and just attempt to enjoy the banality of the safe experience. (Hello Daily Show) I'd rather listen to Bill Maher call us the cowards, even if I disagree with that than just have certain words and ideas be untouchable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by midwinter

You know, Nick, I think you're right. We should just wail away at each other in a debate where we haven't agreed upon any definitions, or subject, or what a conclusion would look likejust like every other debate around here. Because I think it's important that we wrangle something only to learn that your definition of "liberal bias" is "asked a question that I didn't like" and my definition of "liberal bias" is "stuck a hand down Obama's pants and had a ramble while interviewing him." And I think you're right to just cut off any future discussion here of this thing that you seemed to want to talk about by throwing up your hands and saying that I'll just call it a logical fallacy, because god help us, we should have enormous debates about premises that are simply fallacious. We should maybe debate "why the Bible is true because god says so in the Bible" or "I met a black guy who was an asshole and that means all black guys are assholes." And then I think you should continue to complain that I'm being bitchy or trying to wear you down because I'm trying to engage this topic in some rigorous way.

Well than be a partner in this discussion and, in matters where you think your definition might be different than the norms volunteer and explain them as so. Do not expect me to just keep tossing information into the air for you to pick and choose.

We did this already. We agreed to deal with specific examples and then I threw one out there, and you appeared to agree but then discredit the concept. This shouldn't be so one sided, you can volunteer a definition, an example, cite a link, study or whatever you think, just as easily as I can.

Not to be rude, but I've never been the type to just say something is true because I say it is true. (aka the Bible is true because God says so) However I'm not going to sit here and have you demand I define God as I understand it, the Bible as I understand it, religion as I understand it and they have you say, yeah but all that is just bullshit because you really think the Bible is true because God says so or at least that is what I will assert.

Bias is a pretty well understood and defined concept. Do you think I am attempting to apply it in some non-standard form? If that is the case then say so, don't ask me to define it so you can pick at my definition or complain I don't want to write a paper as a baseline to write another paper.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vinea

Yes. Ann sells hatred. Unfortunately it sells well.

What is interesting is that conservative political entertainers use anger and fear while liberal ones use humor.

Rush vs Stewart
Hannity vs Colbert

This isn't to say that there aren't liberal hatemongers. There are plenty. But the most visible commentators are probably Stewart and Colbert. Or maybe those are the only two I watch.

Rush Limbaugh is considered quite funny by those who listen to him. Stewart is as well. I consider mocking the news to be incredibly sad and those who prefer to get their news from a mocking source to be sadder still. I've even teased that Stewart should, by his own criteria, stop hurting America since yelling at each other about current events (ala Crossfire) is just as damaging as mocking current events (Daily Show)

There is a big difference between telling a joke and turning EVERYTHING into a joke. Much like how we all have funny quirks to our families, we have normalcy most of the time so we can laugh at the quirks. If all we could do is riff on all our family memebers all the time, that wouldn't be funny but bitter, angry and sad.

That is the way the shows like Daily Show, and especially the Colbert Report strike me. They aren't guys doing a shtick during a comedy show anymore. They ARE the shtick and it is just sad.

To take it to the example above with Artman and George Carlin, it is fun to kind of explode open or examine our quirks and failings as humans. Laughing at them might allow us to look at them more closely. However when you move to examining failings to just declaring us a failure, and saying the planet could explode, we could all die any no one and no thing would be any better or worse off, that just comes across as bitter, mean and very sad. Still I'd take that over no conversation at all because I hate closed mindedness and censorship.

Quote:

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

The ironic thing is, IF Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly and especially Coulter were meant to be comedians, they might have better acceptance. Unfortunately, they have no sense of humor.

Ann Coulter is NO William F. Buckley. Ann Coulter is NO George Will. Where have all the non-condescending, non-inflammatory conservative pundits anyway?

T.V? I'd have to turn off my web-connection. Your sample of statements is provacative but that doesn't make it wrong or worthy of not engaging the ideas. We have a lot of social commentators that straddle different lines. Someone we both enjoyed, George Carlin, many people I know complained he had just gone bitter toward the end and it wasn't comedy, just political ranting. I know I could compile a series of quotes from him just as provocative in ten minutes of material and that was what was great about him. I could do the same for Bill Maher as well.

I really don't care if someone is safe or generic because that doesn't often challenge thinking. I'd rather risk being offended and have my thinking challenged than to sit there and just attempt to enjoy the banality of the safe experience. (Hello Daily Show) I'd rather listen to Bill Maher call us the cowards, even if I disagree with that than just have certain words and ideas be untouchable.

Well than be a partner in this discussion and, in matters where you think your definition might be different than the norms volunteer and explain them as so. Do not expect me to just keep tossing information into the air for you to pick and choose.

We did this already. We agreed to deal with specific examples and then I threw one out there, and you appeared to agree but then discredit the concept. This shouldn't be so one sided, you can volunteer a definition, an example, cite a link, study or whatever you think, just as easily as I can.

Not to be rude, but I've never been the type to just say something is true because I say it is true. (aka the Bible is true because God says so) However I'm not going to sit here and have you demand I define God as I understand it, the Bible as I understand it, religion as I understand it and they have you say, yeah but all that is just bullshit because you really think the Bible is true because God says so or at least that is what I will assert.

Bias is a pretty well understood and defined concept. Do you think I am attempting to apply it in some non-standard form? If that is the case then say so, don't ask me to define it so you can pick at my definition or complain I don't want to write a paper as a baseline to write another paper.

Rush Limbaugh is considered quite funny by those who listen to him. Stewart is as well. I consider mocking the news to be incredibly sad and those who prefer to get their news from a mocking source to be sadder still. I've even teased that Stewart should, by his own criteria, stop hurting America since yelling at each other about current events (ala Crossfire) is just as damaging as mocking current events (Daily Show)

There is a big difference between telling a joke and turning EVERYTHING into a joke. Much like how we all have funny quirks to our families, we have normalcy most of the time so we can laugh at the quirks. If all we could do is riff on all our family memebers all the time, that wouldn't be funny but bitter, angry and sad.

That is the way the shows like Daily Show, and especially the Colbert Report strike me. They aren't guys doing a shtick during a comedy show anymore. They ARE the shtick and it is just sad.

To take it to the example above with Artman and George Carlin, it is fun to kind of explode open or examine our quirks and failings as humans. Laughing at them might allow us to look at them more closely. However when you move to examining failings to just declaring us a failure, and saying the planet could explode, we could all die any no one and no thing would be any better or worse off, that just comes across as bitter, mean and very sad. Still I'd take that over no conversation at all because I hate closed mindedness and censorship.

I never thought of Zappa as a comedian. Perhaps we need a new title for folks who don't mind being thought of as crass and even perhaps insulting in order to challenge our thought-models.

I'm so glad you have "THE TRUTH." Thanks for showing such zealotry in proclaiming it. Thanks for also proving that liberalism is a humanistic religion no different from other religions.

Quote:

I'm so glad you have "THE TRUTH." Thanks for showing such zealotry in proclaiming it. Thanks for also proving that liberalism is a humanistic religion no different from other religions.

About the truth I do know that when someone tries to rewrite ( well documented ) history to fit their own narrow world views that ain't it.

Coulter does this all the time.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

T.V? I'd have to turn off my web-connection. Your sample of statements is provacative but that doesn't make it wrong or worthy of not engaging the ideas. We have a lot of social commentators that straddle different lines. Someone we both enjoyed, George Carlin, many people I know complained he had just gone bitter toward the end and it wasn't comedy, just political ranting. I know I could compile a series of quotes from him just as provocative in ten minutes of material and that was what was great about him. I could do the same for Bill Maher as well.

George Carlin never took sides and he never discussed politicians, he discussed the overall system of politics and government. When he did, he tore up conservative and liberal themes. He never brought up a name or political party, in many ways he pointed at all of us for the so-called leaders we choose.

He knew early on that choosing or switching sides would be career ending. Example: Dennis Miller.

As far as your TeeVee connection, I would gather that one could find oodles of alternative and unbiased sources on that connection. I suggest you try it. I already posted some suggestions. And if the cable company blocks other alternatives, then get another provider or another way to access it.

Stop crying about Ann Coulter. Cry about the news/media in general. Their compass doesn't point to anything but profits, profits for their corporate entities.

Oh, and here's a great commentary by Brit Charlie Brookers on the demise of newspapers and the dumbing down of British Media.

George Carlin never took sides and he never discussed politicians, he discussed the overall system of politics and government. When he did, he tore up conservative and liberal themes. He never brought up a name or political party, in many ways he pointed at all of us for the so-called leaders we choose.

He knew early on that choosing or switching sides would be career ending. Example: Dennis Miller.

As far as your TeeVee connection, I would gather that one could find oodles of alternative and unbiased sources on that connection. I suggest you try it. I already posted some suggestions. And if the cable company blocks other alternatives, then get another provider or another way to access it.

Stop crying about Ann Coulter. Cry about the news/media in general. Their compass doesn't point to anything but profits, profits for their corporate entities.

Oh, and here's a great commentary by Brit Charlie Brookers on the demise of newspapers and the dumbing down of British Media.

I'm in agreement here trumpy. Artman knows the reality of the situation here. Sure there's rampant editorializing. But not for the left or the right but for the ratings. Even FOX News knows who their audience is and pontificate accordingly.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Ok. I did find one 1988 clip of George Carlin ranting about Ronald Reagan. But given the fact that Reagan was a two term president and we were dumb enough to elect him twice (much like Nixon and Bush), I will give Carlin some slack because I'm sure he did the same to Clinton or even the Left Wing. But he never ceased to paint a broader picture of the scope of things that are fucked up with America. And he stuck it to both of them.

Just out of curiosity, if "liberalism" is as notoriously bad for business and the economy as is postulated by the right, and huge corporations got that way by being hard nosed pragmatists, unswayed by "liberalisms" appeals to income redistribution and punitive tax schemes and pointless government boondoggles and excessive regulation and general fucking around with otherwise free markets, why do those same corporations choose to operate propaganda arms that champion those things?

I guess what I'm asking is, in what sense are AT&T, General Electric, Disney, AOL, Viacom, et al "liberal", and, to the extent that they are demonstrably anything but, why would the elect to spread an ideology hostile to their own self interest?

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

Just out of curiosity, if "liberalism" is as notoriously bad for business and the economy as is postulated by the right, and huge corporations got that way by being hard nosed pragmatists, unswayed by "liberalisms" appeals to income redistribution and punitive tax schemes and pointless government boondoggles and excessive regulation and general fucking around with otherwise free markets, why do those same corporations choose to operate propaganda arms that champion those things?

I guess what I'm asking is, in what sense are AT&T, General Electric, Disney, AOL, Viacom, et al "liberal", and, to the extent that they are demonstrably anything but, why would the elect to spread an ideology hostile to their own self interest?

And all I want to do is establish some objective measure of "liberal bias" so that we don't have to spend 20 pages debating how to parse some statement.

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

Rush Limbaugh is considered quite funny by those who listen to him. Stewart is as well. I consider mocking the news to be incredibly sad and those who prefer to get their news from a mocking source to be sadder still. I've even teased that Stewart should, by his own criteria, stop hurting America since yelling at each other about current events (ala Crossfire) is just as damaging as mocking current events (Daily Show)

I find it sad that some don't see the difference between mocking the news and the reaction to the news by some from both sides which is what the Daily Show and Colbert Report does.
Perhaps sampling doesn't tell the whole story.

Maybe you should tease Coulter to stop hurting America by toning down her "tone".
The words she uses shows the "enemy" how divided her perception of her country is, could give the "enemy" another tool in recruitment to destroy the infidels.
Her book titles are especially telling.

But of course I'm wasting my time because as you replied to me earlier, she's right and her tone is what people don't like, not the actual words she uses.

By the way, she's appearing on the Huckabee show tonight at 9 to answer her attacks on him.
Should be fun.

And all I want to do is establish some objective measure of "liberal bias" so that we don't have to spend 20 pages debating how to parse some statement.

I agree that that's a necessary precursor to any sane discussion, and perhaps I'm needlessly muddying the waters, but it seems to me that the whole notion of liberal media bias, given the realities of media ownership in these United States, is sort of fundamentally unlikely, even before we get to defining terms.

Like talking about how the meat-packing industry is pro PETA. We can talk about what it means to be "pro PETA", but really at some point it's probably not a terrible idea to just stop and say "wait, that doesn't actually make any sense."

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

I agree that that's a necessary precursor to any sane discussion, and perhaps I'm needlessly monkeying up the waters, but it seems to me that the whole notion of liberal media bias, given the realities of media ownership in these United States, is sort of fundamentally unlikely, even before we get to defining terms.

Like talking about how the meat-packing industry is pro PETA. We can talk about what it means to be "pro PETA", but really at some point it's probably not a terrible idea to just stop and say "wait, that doesn't actually make any sense."

Sure. I don't know that I necessarily have an issue with corporate ownership in the same way you do. There are two state newspapers here. One is the "liberal" Tribune and the other is the "conservative" Deseret Morning News. Both are owned by the LDS church. Unless the owners begin to demand that news be covered in a certain way, it doesn't bother me.

In April 2003, in a speech at Kansas State University, Banfield raised concerns regarding media coverage of the conflict in Iraq. She also blasted "cable news operators who wrap themselves in the American flag and go after a certain target demographic", specifically naming Fox News Channel as an example. According to a New York Times article, her speech angered NBC management who rebuked her and lowered her profile. She was fired in 2004.

Banfield was fired not for her reporting, but for something she WAS RIGHT ABOUT in a speech she delivered.

I think, in the end, that most of the people participating in this thread agree on some first principles: something is wrong with journalism; cable news is generally bad; screaming isn't journalism. I think I disagree with Nick in that I want a confrontational press. I want a press that sort of behaves like an ecumenical Bill O'Reilly without the insanity. Remember Bush's interview with RTE? I remember how everyone was astonished by that interview, and I was, too, until I started listening to BBC Radio interviews. That's just how they do it. They challenge. They interrupt. They confront. They question and poke and prod. I want an entire press like that.

But my point, earlier, is that it is a strange leap to go from "Gosh, the press seems to suck" directly to "They're in the tank for Obama! See? Here's this one article I don't like!"

But again, without a clear, objective measure of what "liberal bias" looks like, any discussion of it is just a contest to see who is the cleverest. Not that that's any different than normal around here.

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

Ann Coulter was cleared in a 2006 voter fraud investigation in Florida after an FBI agent/friend "intruded," but new questions have arisen about her previous voting record in Connecticut. The New York Daily News reports that Coulter voted there via absentee ballot in 2002 and 2004 while records show she actually lived in New York City. Given FOX News' obsession with voter fraud, can we expect an investigation from the "we report, you decide" network? A prime time discussion covering one of their most frequent guests on the "fair and balanced" network? Don't hold your breath.

The Daily News reports that Connecticut will begin a formal investigation if they receive a complaint under oath. The paper notes, "There are a few 9/11 widows who might volunteer. (Coulter, you remember, called them harpies and witches.)" Private investigator Joseph Culligan has the documents relevant to Coulter's Connecticut voting posted on his site, webofdeception.com.

Brad Friedman has an excellent run down of the Florida allegations, including convincing evidence that Coulter also committed tax fraud.

Ok. I did find one 1988 clip of George Carlin ranting about Ronald Reagan. But given the fact that Reagan was a two term president and we were dumb enough to elect him twice (much like Nixon and Bush), I will give Carlin some slack because I'm sure he did the same to Clinton or even the Left Wing. But he never ceased to paint a broader picture of the scope of things that are fucked up with America. And he stuck it to both of them.

Maybe off topic, but I wanted to correct myself, and dammit Carlin's is just damn good.

Carlin's Last Show had plenty of politics and was pretty darn dark but again, I don't begrudge the guy. I'm just saying it gets very hard, and might even be a bit harmful to step past, here is the truth I am exploding, and there is no truth and we are all fucked. Carlin was definitely tending toward the latter in his later years. I still miss him too regardless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by addabox

Just out of curiosity, if "liberalism" is as notoriously bad for business and the economy as is postulated by the right, and huge corporations got that way by being hard nosed pragmatists, unswayed by "liberalisms" appeals to income redistribution and punitive tax schemes and pointless government boondoggles and excessive regulation and general fucking around with otherwise free markets, why do those same corporations choose to operate propaganda arms that champion those things?

I guess what I'm asking is, in what sense are AT&T, General Electric, Disney, AOL, Viacom, et al "liberal", and, to the extent that they are demonstrably anything but, why would the elect to spread an ideology hostile to their own self interest?

Well first many of them are quasi-monopolies in that they own our airwaves and have a certain interesting in continuing that. So in that regard they aren't true competitors but more like an oligarchy that wants to make sure they keep their slice of the pie.

Secondly, how is it against their interests to elect people who claim good intentions, but ultimately get bought off and raise taxes on everyone including possible up and coming competitors? If I were a old media company, I think the thing I would want for example is someone who decides to tax the internet when I own the airwaves. I would of course claim nothing but good societal intentions while being able to beat my competitors with a tax stick.

Quote:

Originally Posted by midwinter

And all I want to do is establish some objective measure of "liberal bias" so that we don't have to spend 20 pages debating how to parse some statement.

Why would the definition of liberal bias be any different than the standard definition of bias with liberal as the category measured?

Quote:

Originally Posted by screener

I find it sad that some don't see the difference between mocking the news and the reaction to the news by some from both sides which is what the Daily Show and Colbert Report does.
Perhaps sampling doesn't tell the whole story.

Maybe you should tease Coulter to stop hurting America by toning down her "tone".
The words she uses shows the "enemy" how divided her perception of her country is, could give the "enemy" another tool in recruitment to destroy the infidels.
Her book titles are especially telling.

But of course I'm wasting my time because as you replied to me earlier, she's right and her tone is what people don't like, not the actual words she uses.

By the way, she's appearing on the Huckabee show tonight at 9 to answer her attacks on him.
Should be fun.

How is it you guys always seem to know who is on where? Damn, I just don't have the time for it. I'm simply saying that there are limits to the effectiveness of satire. An adult who acts like an ungrateful child is funny as a skit. An adult who acts like that all the time isn't funny, it is sad. It is called a shtick for a reason. Life as shtick isn't funny. I'm not saying ban it or whatever, but it is sad rather than funny.

Quote:

Originally Posted by addabox

I agree that that's a necessary precursor to any sane discussion, and perhaps I'm needlessly muddying the waters, but it seems to me that the whole notion of liberal media bias, given the realities of media ownership in these United States, is sort of fundamentally unlikely, even before we get to defining terms.

Like talking about how the meat-packing industry is pro PETA. We can talk about what it means to be "pro PETA", but really at some point it's probably not a terrible idea to just stop and say "wait, that doesn't actually make any sense."

I'm always curious about this notion that just because something is big or has money, it can't be liberal. George Soros, most Ivy's with their endowments, many families that have inherited wealth, we see plenty of liberalism there. You only need to be big enough and have enough guaranteed income to no longer have to sweat market forces and you can be whatever political ideology you desire. It's an easy pattern to spot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by midwinter

Sure. I don't know that I necessarily have an issue with corporate ownership in the same way you do. There are two state newspapers here. One is the "liberal" Tribune and the other is the "conservative" Deseret Morning News. Both are owned by the LDS church. Unless the owners begin to demand that news be covered in a certain way, it doesn't bother me.

Banfield was fired not for her reporting, but for something she WAS RIGHT ABOUT in a speech she delivered.

I think, in the end, that most of the people participating in this thread agree on some first principles: something is wrong with journalism; cable news is generally bad; screaming isn't journalism. I think I disagree with Nick in that I want a confrontational press. I want a press that sort of behaves like an ecumenical Bill O'Reilly without the insanity. Remember Bush's interview with RTE? I remember how everyone was astonished by that interview, and I was, too, until I started listening to BBC Radio interviews. That's just how they do it. They challenge. They interrupt. They confront. They question and poke and prod. I want an entire press like that.

But my point, earlier, is that it is a strange leap to go from "Gosh, the press seems to suck" directly to "They're in the tank for Obama! See? Here's this one article I don't like!"

But again, without a clear, objective measure of what "liberal bias" looks like, any discussion of it is just a contest to see who is the cleverest. Not that that's any different than normal around here.

I don't think of it as a leap but a continuation of a clear trend. The reality is that the press is increasingly shallow and lazy. In short bias is easier to hide when you are spending all your time on news, but much harder to hide when you are spending it on analysis. The press reports less and less news and does more and more analysis. The rationales are easy to understand. It is much easier to sit in a room and pontificate than it is to work phones, beats, sources, etc. to generate news. They suck because they keep reporting less and less and because what they are filling that less with, is analysis and that analysis is clearly in the tank.

If we take this outside of the realm of politics, it might be much easier to spot. I know you like music and so do I. Once upon a time we probably remember this thing called MTV and they used to actually play music. Strange but true to imagine I know and as we all know nowadays, they simply don't play music. They suck. They kept slowly removing music and kept adding filler and over time the filler became of one type, reality TV shows.

Today to anyone who likes music, the network is completely unwatchable. Their ratings are in the tank and their solution is.... I think they ordered up something like 14 different reality series this year. I'm sure next year when their ratings and profits are even lower, the solution will be 20 reality series. Why playing some music isn't a choice, I can't figure out, but the trend is clear.

Take music and replace with news. Take reality TV and replace with in the tank analysis and the trend is clear.

From the link....

Quote:

Stengel says his goal is to "make Time lead the conversation, not follow it. To speak stronger with a point of view. To mix more analysis with reporting. Not to ask questions, but to answer them on the cover" -- as with this week's story, "Why Israel Can't Win."

Newsweek ran 26 cover stories on politics last year -- including two on Michelle Obama -- and a spate of serious essays such as "How to Fix the World." The few feature covers dealt with such subjects as addiction, bipolar disease, divorce and surrogate mothers.

"It is a conscious strategy to serve the base," Meacham says. "We have done more politics, more foreign policy, more economics." Editors sometimes debate whether they are getting too wonky, but Meacham says he is "enormously proud," for instance, of putting William F. Buckley Jr.'s death on the cover.

This is the wrong path. Newsweek and others are going to bleed readers because you read to think and not to be lectured to about what you should already think. You want to have information to form conclusions, not have someone too lazy to get the information inform you of what your conclusion should already be. BTW, if links to folks saying, "Yeah we aren't going for objective and broad, but playing to our "base", playing narrow with informed opinion isn't enough to convince you of the actions taking place, then there isn't a way I'll ever convince you. The mea culpas are right there. They don't think they are at fault yet, but much like MTV ordering more of what is killing their own ratings, news is slitting their own throats because "in the tank" analysis is not information or news.

The solution to the decline this causes is even more of the same. When the ratings and lack of profits come in, the response will be even more talking heads, even less news, more analysis and make it even more opinionated than before. The cause is the cure apparently.

Why would the definition of liberal bias be any different than the standard definition of bias with liberal as the category measured?

Because if my definition of "liberal" and your definition of "liberal" and my standard of "bias" and your standard of "bias" are different, then we're not having the same conversation. You can't treat these things like they're clear objective categories that don't require any coding or definition in order to proceed.

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

Because if my definition of "liberal" and your definition of "liberal" and my standard of "bias" and your standard of "bias" are different, then we're not having the same conversation. You can't treat these things like they're clear objective categories that don't require any coding or definition in order to proceed.

You appear to know what you are looking for better so why don't you go first. Name some of the forms of coding and definitions, apart I guess from the dictionary, that you would want to use.

Because if my definition of "liberal" and your definition of "liberal" and my standard of "bias" and your standard of "bias" are different, then we're not having the same conversation. You can't treat these things like they're clear objective categories that don't require any coding or definition in order to proceed.

Journalism isn't like a hard science, and it definitely isn't like mathematics, where objective truths are either known or unknown, through the formal mechanism known as the proof.

In other words, any definition of objectivity in journalism, is inherently biased to begin with.

Further, even if we all agree on a biased definition of objectivity in journalism, we have a fundamental conundrum, of how exactly we go about categorizing all things in journalism, since journalism inherently encompasses many objects or words or stimuli.

Therefore, even if we all could agree on a single definition of objectivity in journalism, we are still left with the always greater difficulty of categorizing all things with respect to journalism, regardless.

It simply cannot be accomplished, regardless of the existence or nonexistence of a formally universally accepted definition of journalistic objectivity.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

If two groups, A and B, look at a situation and come to two different "factual" conclusions. Is it then even possible for the media to report on the situation without being biased? What if one side seems obviously correct and the other obviously wrong?

Is it better to report merely what the two sides espouse? Or is it better give more credance to the side that appear to be making a "factual" argument?

Sure, in some situations it could be argued either way. But what about completely absurd claims? There are wack-jobs with conspiracy theories everywhere. Should they be on the news? The question is... where to draw that line. At one point in history, the liberal media was supporting the civil rights movement and drawing criticism from conservatives. Should the KKK agenda have gotten more media time?

Sorry for the inflammatory analogy. I was stretching for an example that nearly nobody could argue with. I don't want to characterize the conservatives of today with the analogy. Rather, it begs the question of how outlandish do views have to be before air-time isn't deserved?

In my opinion, there will always be people claiming that the media is biased. Sometimes they are right. Sometimes not. Unfortunately it is impossible to really prove. After all, that proof is subjected to the same bias.

My take? The media aligns more with the liberal view of the world. However I also consider that view to be more factual and fair. I'm unsure if this makes them "biased".

If two groups, A and B, look at a situation and come to two different "factual" conclusions. Is it then even possible for the media to report on the situation without being biased? What if one side seems obviously correct and the other obviously wrong?

Is it better to report merely what the two sides espouse? Or is it better give more credance to the side that appear to be making a "factual" argument?

Sure, in some situations it could be argued either way. But what about completely absurd claims? There are wack-jobs with conspiracy theories everywhere. Should they be on the news? The question is... where to draw that line. At one point in history, the liberal media was supporting the civil rights movement and drawing criticism from conservatives. Should the KKK agenda have gotten more media time?

Sorry for the inflammatory analogy. I was stretching for an example that nearly nobody could argue with. I don't want to characterize the conservatives of today with the analogy. Rather, it begs the question of how outlandish do views have to be before air-time isn't deserved?

In my opinion, there will always be people claiming that the media is biased. Sometimes they are right. Sometimes not. Unfortunately it is impossible to really prove. After all, that proof is subjected to the same bias.

My take? The media aligns more with the liberal view of the world. However I also consider that view to be more factual and fair. I'm unsure if this makes them "biased".

My take is that the media is more concerned with it's own ratings than any political alignment.

So whatever is controversial ( left or right ) they play up. There is of course FOX news. And they aren't liberal.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Journalism isn't like a hard science, and it definitely isn't like mathematics, where objective truths are either known or unknown, through the formal mechanism known as the proof.

In other words, any definition of objectivity in journalism, is inherently biased to begin with.

Further, even if we all agree on a biased definition of objectivity in journalism, we have a fundamental conundrum, of how exactly we go about categorizing all things in journalism, since journalism inherently encompasses many objects or words or stimuli.

Therefore, even if we all could agree on a single definition of objectivity in journalism, we are still left with the always greater difficulty of categorizing all things with respect to journalism, regardless.

It simply cannot be accomplished, regardless of the existence or nonexistence of a formally universally accepted definition of journalistic objectivity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

My take is that the media is more concerned with it's own ratings than any political alignment.

So whatever is controversial ( left or right ) they play up. There is of course FOX news. And they aren't liberal.

Hahahahaha.... I love this reasoning. There isn't such a thing as objective and thus there can be no determinatino of bias..........

But damn is that Fox/Faux News a biased bunch of bastards!

You two just busted the irony-meter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dfiler

An interesting conundrum...

If two groups, A and B, look at a situation and come to two different "factual" conclusions. Is it then even possible for the media to report on the situation without being biased? What if one side seems obviously correct and the other obviously wrong?

It is possible to report on both groups. You can simply report what happened, what each group wants or on the event itself. You don't have to pick a winner or a loser.

As for what seems correct or wrong, there is a time and place for editorializing and you should label and treat it as such. If the newroom feels that raising taxes for infrastructure is great that is fine for the editorial section.

The labeling, the omissions, the "analysis" that is really editorializing, that isn't even an attempt at objectivity.

Quote:

Is it better to report merely what the two sides espouse? Or is it better give more credance to the side that appear to be making a "factual" argument?

Sure, in some situations it could be argued either way. But what about completely absurd claims? There are wack-jobs with conspiracy theories everywhere. Should they be on the news? The question is... where to draw that line. At one point in history, the liberal media was supporting the civil rights movement and drawing criticism from conservatives. Should the KKK agenda have gotten more media time?

Sorry for the inflammatory analogy. I was stretching for an example that nearly nobody could argue with. I don't want to characterize the conservatives of today with the analogy. Rather, it begs the question of how outlandish do views have to be before air-time isn't deserved?

If the news is driven by events most of this stuff would come up and sort itself out. Now I can even understand how in the past the media felt the need to be "gatekeepers" when there was limited time and resources. However now they have 24/7 to fill and the real problem is that they still filter the days news down to 15 minutes worth of info that they repeat endlessly and then on top of it they spend hours pontificating on that 15 minutes worth of news.

Is it the job of the media to sort out the information for us and determine the winners or losers or to present it for us to determine for ourselves? Wouldn't you prefer to pick your own winner and loser rather than have the media pick it for you?

To run with your very wrong and infllamatory analogy, wouldn't you prefer the media just present the Democrats, the Dixiecrats that split off from them, and the Republicans and you can determine for yourself who has a valid viewpoint and who is just full of crap?

BTW, to hit on something much earlier mentioned by Mid. I fully support an adversarial press. The issue is when they are hostile to one group, play pattycake with the other, and then claim to just be objective. However there is a difference between challenging a perspective and hitting it with a bunch of loaded questions and false dilemmas. We don't have the former and have plenty of the latter.

It is possible to report on both groups. You can simply report what happened, what each group wants or on the event itself. You don't have to pick a winner or a loser.

As for what seems correct or wrong, there is a time and place for editorializing and you should label and treat it as such.

I agree with you to a certain extent.

Unfortunately it is really hard to get people to agree on what are "facts". For instance, who broke the ceasefire between Gaza and Israel? Or what do you do when the flat-earthers demand equal airtime?

Certainly modern news outlets editorializes more than necessary. But even if that weren't the case, I still believe that the media would side with the liberal version of "facts". At least today. Liberal and conservative play different rolls at different times throughout history.

I do acknowledge that my above assertions are entirely unprovable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman

Is it the job of the media to sort out the information for us and determine the winners or losers or to present it for us to determine for ourselves? Wouldn't you prefer to pick your own winner and loser rather than have the media pick it for you?

Again let me stress that I feel our media editorializes too much. However the line between news and commentary is pretty thin. There is so much information out there to report, such that merely choosing which to report is in itself a bias. It isn't even remotely possible to report everything. They have to pick and choose. The Israel Gaza war is the perfect example. The matter is so complicated that even right meaning individuals can be completely biased depending on their background and which facts they've been exposed to.

Hahahahaha.... I love this reasoning. There isn't such a thing as objective and thus there can be no determinatino of bias..........

But damn is that Fox/Faux News a biased bunch of bastards!

You two just busted the irony-meter.

It is possible to report on both groups. You can simply report what happened, what each group wants or on the event itself. You don't have to pick a winner or a loser.

As for what seems correct or wrong, there is a time and place for editorializing and you should label and treat it as such. If the newroom feels that raising taxes for infrastructure is great that is fine for the editorial section.

The labeling, the omissions, the "analysis" that is really editorializing, that isn't even an attempt at objectivity.

If the news is driven by events most of this stuff would come up and sort itself out. Now I can even understand how in the past the media felt the need to be "gatekeepers" when there was limited time and resources. However now they have 24/7 to fill and the real problem is that they still filter the days news down to 15 minutes worth of info that they repeat endlessly and then on top of it they spend hours pontificating on that 15 minutes worth of news.

Is it the job of the media to sort out the information for us and determine the winners or losers or to present it for us to determine for ourselves? Wouldn't you prefer to pick your own winner and loser rather than have the media pick it for you?

To run with your very wrong and infllamatory analogy, wouldn't you prefer the media just present the Democrats, the Dixiecrats that split off from them, and the Republicans and you can determine for yourself who has a valid viewpoint and who is just full of crap?

BTW, to hit on something much earlier mentioned by Mid. I fully support an adversarial press. The issue is when they are hostile to one group, play pattycake with the other, and then claim to just be objective. However there is a difference between challenging a perspective and hitting it with a bunch of loaded questions and false dilemmas. We don't have the former and have plenty of the latter.

Sigh! trumpy, trumpy, trumpy!

There isn't any perfect example out there and that was where I thought this discussion was going. Have you not been reading or just absorbing what you want again?

FOX news seemed like a good example of where there is some bias ( blatantly enough to be obvious ). However even they will chase ratings over anything because like the others it's their bread and butter.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination